People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ray

245 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 393 (People v. Ray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ray, 245 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered March 1, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently [394]*394waived his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction after a jury trial in exchange for a lesser sentence. The defendant was made aware of his appealable issues and was not coerced into entering the sentencing agreement. Moreover, the defendant received the benefit of his bargain. Accordingly, he cannot now challenge the alleged trial errors (see, People v Holman, 89 NY2d 876; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Bentley, 227 AD2d 411). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered March 1, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently [394]*394waived his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction after a jury trial in exchange for a lesser sentence. The defendant was made aware of his appealable issues and was not coerced into entering the sentencing agreement. Moreover, the defendant received the benefit of his bargain. Accordingly, he cannot now challenge the alleged trial errors (see, People v Holman, 89 NY2d 876; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Bentley, 227 AD2d 411). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ray-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack